noumpere Posted January 27 Report Posted January 27 (NOT a continuation of "Who Bats I and II", but just minutia that I forget after being out of it for so long) R1, two outs. B4 hits a pop up over foul territory. R1 interferes with F3, but F3 still catches the ball. Who is out (R1 or B4)? Who leads off the next time this team bats (B4 or B5)? NFHS, NCAA, OBR rulings, please. Quote
Velho Posted January 27 Report Posted January 27 53 minutes ago, noumpere said: R1, two outs. B4 hits a pop up over foul territory. R1 interferes with F3, but F3 still catches the ball. Last bit is inconsequential. R1 out for INT. B4 awarded 1B. B5 leads off next offensive half inning. Quote
jimurrayalterego Posted January 27 Report Posted January 27 1 hour ago, Velho said: Last bit is inconsequential. R1 out for INT. B4 awarded 1B. B5 leads off next offensive half inning. Bold is not correct. Italics is correct for one code. 1 Quote
Velho Posted January 27 Report Posted January 27 2 hours ago, noumpere said: B4 hits a pop up over FOUL territory Reading comprehension. This is a further example of the real world implications of the disparity in my Math vs Verbal SAT scores. Would you believe it was done on purpose to mess with LLMs? 1 Quote
grayhawk Posted January 27 Report Posted January 27 6 hours ago, noumpere said: R1 interferes with F3, but F3 still catches the ball. 1 1 Quote
The Man in Blue Posted January 28 Report Posted January 28 9 hours ago, Velho said: Last bit is inconsequential. R1 out for INT. B4 awarded 1B. B5 leads off next offensive half inning. I may be misremembering this, but I think this was a glitch in the matrix . . . err, NFHS Softball rulebook a few years ago. Nobody with common sense ever actually enforced it that way, but the rule read that way until it was finally corrected (in the last 5 years or so?). Quote
noumpere Posted January 28 Author Report Posted January 28 RefMag has that in all codes R1 is out, but: NFHS / NCAA: B4 leads off OBR: B5 leads off Support for this? Quote
grayhawk Posted January 28 Report Posted January 28 3 hours ago, noumpere said: RefMag has that in all codes R1 is out, but: NFHS / NCAA: B4 leads off OBR: B5 leads off Support for this? I don't see how there would be a code difference on who leads off. B4 did not complete their time at bat because the ball was foul. The catch never happened because the ball was dead the moment of the interference. We leave it live only to determine the fair/foul status of the batted ball. 2 Quote
jimurrayalterego Posted January 29 Report Posted January 29 10 hours ago, grayhawk said: I don't see how there would be a code difference on who leads off. B4 did not complete their time at bat because the ball was foul. The catch never happened because the ball was dead the moment of the interference. We leave it live only to determine the fair/foul status of the batted ball. This verbiage comes from OBR 6.01(a)(10) "........If the third out occurs because a runner is declared out for interference on a foul batted ball, the batter-runner is considered to have completed his at bat, and the first batter up the following inning will be the player who follows him in the batting order (if there are less than two outs, the batter will complete his at-bat)." Which squares with the foul IFF ruling since there wouldn't be a third out in that sit. BTW color me surprised and reeducated. Edited to add: This happened in 2020: "• Amended Rule 6.01(a) dictating who the next batter is following a runner being declared out for interference on a foul batted ball" They really need to let NCAA know when they change stuff. It took Randy a while to get the runner assist change. As to @Velho LL will have to stay with their circa 1950's verbiage.😄 1 Quote
jimurrayalterego Posted January 29 Report Posted January 29 1 minute ago, noumpere said: Thanks for the reference. Thanks for the "What happened". Referee was 4years late and MLB didn't copy me or Randy or LL on the change. 1 Quote
The Man in Blue Posted January 29 Report Posted January 29 Presumed logic (or how it was explained in that softball clinic years ago): The runner could intentionally interfere in an effort to "give the batter another chance." Essentially: Big Al who hits dingers pops up in foul territory. Rather than allowing the routine fly out, the runner intentionally interferes so Big Al gets a fresh at bat next inning. 1 Quote
jimurrayalterego Posted January 29 Report Posted January 29 20 minutes ago, The Man in Blue said: Presumed logic (or how it was explained in that softball clinic years ago): The runner could intentionally interfere in an effort to "give the batter another chance." Essentially: Big Al who hits dingers pops up in foul territory. Rather than allowing the routine fly out, the runner intentionally interferes so Big Al gets a fresh at bat next inning. Is it to keep it from being fresh (0-0)next inning with 2 out but if less than 2 outs keep the count this inning? Quote
BigBlue4u Posted January 29 Report Posted January 29 On 1/27/2026 at 9:41 AM, Velho said: On 1/27/2026 at 8:48 AM, noumpere said: R1, two outs. B4 hits a pop up over foul territory. R1 interferes with F3, but F3 still catches the ball. Last bit is inconsequential. R1 out for INT. B4 awarded 1B. B5 leads off next offensive half inning. Not so fast. If the fielder makes the catch and there is no other action, where is the interference? Quote
grayhawk Posted January 30 Report Posted January 30 3 hours ago, BigBlue4u said: Not so fast. If the fielder makes the catch and there is no other action, where is the interference? Would you say a fielder can be hindered and still make a catch? Quote
jimurrayalterego Posted January 30 Report Posted January 30 4 hours ago, BigBlue4u said: Not so fast. If the fielder makes the catch and there is no other action, where is the interference? Aren't you aware of the OBR IFF Definition where a possible foul fly is interfered with? Does "even if caught" ring a bell? Quote
The Man in Blue Posted January 30 Report Posted January 30 23 hours ago, jimurrayalterego said: Is it to keep it from being fresh (0-0)next inning with 2 out but if less than 2 outs keep the count this inning? I suppose that is one way of looking at it. I think of it this way: you are getting nothing out of the inning (third out), so would you rather lose the runner on base and your big hitter, or just trade the runner and give your big hitter another chance (and a fresh count) next inning with nobody on base? If the batter is going to get a fresh shot, it makes sense for the runner to interfere and give Big Al another shot at it. The interference is a way to game the system, hence the heavier penalty. With less than two outs, it doesn't really matter. It was going to be a foul ball or an out -- not as much to be gained by interfering, as you still have a shot at scoring the runner if Big Al flies out. 1 Quote
BigBlue4u Posted February 1 Report Posted February 1 On 1/29/2026 at 7:06 PM, jimurrayalterego said: Aren't you aware of the OBR IFF Definition where a possible foul fly is interfered with? Does "even if caught" ring a bell? No, it does not. How can a foul ball be considered an infield fly? Quote
Jimurray Posted February 2 Report Posted February 2 1 hour ago, BigBlue4u said: No, it does not. How can a foul ball be considered an infield fly? It’s not if it’s foul but it would do you good to read the comments to the OBR definition of infield fly. Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.